Many countries and companies have announced net-zero goals, some of which rely on CDR (carbon dioxide removal). While most climate scenarios that keep warming to 1.5°C or 2°C depend on some CDR, scientists warn that cutting emissions is the surest way to limit climate change, and that carbon removal on its own won't be enough. Some net-zero plans also rely on technologies that are not yet fully developed or understood. Each month we are digging into the world of CDR to bring you the latest updates and stories, aiming to demystify the CDR conversation.
Net-zero got a significant boost this month as the International Energy Agency suggested an end to new fossil fuels. Millions of more dollars were promised to carbon removal projects, both from governments and private investors. Meanwhile, scientists warned that net-zero targets must be transparent, if they are to help us reach a low carbon future. The UN called for increased spending on nature as new research was published showing the long-term cooling effect of nature-based climate solutions. And there is a rapidly closing window for answering urgent questions about Mark Carney's proposals to reform the voluntary offsetting market.
Also this month, we bring you insight into nature-based solutions from Stanley Kimaren ole Riamit, an Indigenous leader from the Pastoralists Maasai Community in Kenya.
Please feel free to share this resource with anyone who may be interested. Sign up here to get this email in your inbox each month and click here to see an archive of previous newsletters.
All the best,
Albertine
Carbon dioxide removal (CDR) in net-zero plans
The International Energy Agency (IEA) called for an end to new fossil fuel development in its new net-zero roadmap. Most commentators cautiously welcomed what was seen as a more ambitious call for decarbonisation from the traditionally somewhat conservative agency. But the IEA predicts that fossil fuels will still exist in 2050, projecting a relatively large role for Carbon Capture and Storage (CCS) (skyrocketing from 40 million tonnes of carbon dioxide captured today to 5.2 billion tonnes by 2050), and a significant role for negative emissions technology (CDR), which it expects to remove over 2.4 billion tonnes of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere each year by 2050. Some experts see this as an over-reliance on future technology.
The report also triggered renewed debate about the validity of net-zero targets, with fears that they could be little more than greenwash if there are no limits on companies relying on negative emissions. Researchers also emphasized that companies buying carbon offsets need to ensure that any 'offset' carbon is removed from the atmosphere for centuries, not just in the short-term.
Net-zero targets could hide as much as they reveal if transparency is not increased,according to Climate Home News. An overwhelming majority of 300 climate experts, surveyed this month, favour the separation of emissions reductions from carbon removal targets, to ensure that the two climate targets are not seen as interchangeable. Separate targets, scientists say, would make carbon removal ambitions explicit and allow for public scrutiny and debate. This comes as the UK government announced it will invest over GBP 30 million into novel carbon removal technology and research. The money will only target carbon removal in the ‘hard-to-abate’ sectors of heavy industry, agriculture and aviation.
Carbon removal projects need to embed justice, Vanessa Suarez of Carbon180, an NGO focused on carbon removal, argues, in response to a group of environmental justice advisors telling the Biden administration that CCS and carbon removal projects are at odds with the administration's promises of climate justice. Others argue that carbon removal must offer benefits and align with the values of local people. One warning sign is that countries with large tropical forests who want to benefit from carbon markets have yet to recognise the rights of Indigenous Peoples, according to a new report by the Rights and Resources Initiative. The report outlines some of the legal and justice issues that will arise if carbon markets are allowed to exist without the right rules in place.
What about the role of richer countries? A new study in Nature created a small social mediabuzz by arguing that rich nations must start considering economic degrowth to avoid a reliance on risky carbon removal technology and to stay 1.5C aligned.
Trees and nature
Spending on nature must triple this decade and grow rapidly to over USD 500 billion annually by 2050, to achieve the Paris Goals, the UN concluded this month. Scientists and decision makers are grappling with how much carbon the natural world might be able to remove from the atmosphere - a question that has risen in importance with the rise of net-zero. A new analysis finds that so-called 'Nature Based Solutions' (NbS) could cool the plant long after peak temperature (net-zero) is achieved, which means that they will have a powerful role in reducing long-term emissions. But the long-term benefits of NbS will only be delivered through ecologically sound and socially equitable projects. This month we saw one such example in Kenya, where mangrove restoration is rewarding women and the climate. The wider context is that a host of companies including Apple, Amazon, Nestle, Coca-Cola, BNP and LATAM have all recently launched nature-based projects which are mostly focused on forests. Making sure such projects deliver benefits to ecosystems and local people will be important.
The UK must rewild its oceans to reach carbon targets, argues anew report from the Marine Conservation Society and Rewilding Britain. Another report from Ulster Wildlife makes a similar case specifically for Northern Ireland. Earlier this year Australia announced a USD 30 million 'blue carbon' fund.
Seagrasses, mangroves and tidal marshes can store and absorb carbon 30 times faster than trees on dry land. A new study this month also highlighted the benefits of seaweed for swallowing up pollutants off the Gulf of Mexico. But, other research suggests seaweed may not be a climate panacea, finding a much lower carbon removal potential than initially hoped.
Carbon offsetting and markets
The volume of carbon offsets sold has doubled in the past two years. Many companies see paying a small fee for green activities like protecting forests as the easiest way to clean up their businesses. But the rules and effectiveness of the market remain murky. This spurred the creation of a task force headed by Mark Carney, CEO of Standard Chartered Plc. and former governor of the Bank of England, which hopes to launch a better pilot market this year. But Bloomberg interviewed more than a dozen people involved in the task force, and found many areas where the proposal remains unclear.
90% of voluntary offsets using nature-based solutions fail to meet a set of sustainability criteria, a new white paper by carbon capture nonprofit Compensate concludes. Tech start-up Sylvera aims to rate projects to find those which actually deliver promised benefits. It found nearly half of the offsets rated did not deliver promised carbon reductions. Climate experts involved in the Carney taskforce have expressed concern that finance veterans lack the skills to properly assess some of the complexities of the issue. This article by Compensate CEO Elina Kajosaaru is a good reminder of how offsets have failed in the past.
New carbon removal technology and investments
Oil and gas companies continue to feel the net-zero pressure: BP boss Bernard Looney described the new IEA report, which suggested an immediate end to new prospecting for oil and gas, as “credible” but is still planning more oil and gas production. Petrostates Saudi Arabia, Russia and Norway tried to dismiss the report. Shell’s investors voted to commit to net-zero by 2050. Exxon and Chevron were also asked to up their decarbonisation game by investors, as a hedge fund activist investor managed to secure two of Exxon’s board seats, and Chevron’s investors backed a more stringent target.
Chevron joined forces with oilfield services company Schlumberger and Microsoft to invest in a new US bioenergy with carbon capture and storage (BECCS) plant. Details about the project remain unclear, but the move shows oil companies are still hoping to profit from capturing carbon. A new study by thinktank Ember found that the pilot Drax BECCS project in Yorkshire could cost UK households GBP 500 each in subsidies over the next 25 years.
Venture capitalists continue to back CDR. Nasdaq, a global capital markets tech firm, has bought up a majority stake in Puro.earth, a Finish online carbon marketplace. They say they intend to support new methodologies for verifying CO2, and help scale the marketplace. Stripe Inc., an online payment processor, has added six more carbon removal start-ups to its roster, including companies looking at Direct Air Capture (DACs), mineral weathering and ocean kelp. Online storefront Shopify Inc. has committed USD 5 million a year to carbon removal.
CDR Insight : Nature-Based Solutions: A lifeline for Indigenous Peoples
This perspective comes from Stanley Kimaren ole Riamit, an Indigenous leader from the Pastoralists Maasai Community in Kenya. He is Founder-Director of Indigenous Livelihoods Enhancement Partners (ILEPA) and serves on the Board of Rights and Resources Initiative. He previously chaired the International Indigenous Peoples Forum on Climate Change.
In Kenya, nature-based solutions traditionally employed by pastoralists have long been recognized as one of the most effective means of restoring ecosystem health and reversing degradation in drylands. Yet, pastoral land continues to be annexed for uses perceived as more productive, such as conservation, commercial agriculture and tourism.
As a member of the Maasai Pastoralist Community of Kenya, I’d like to share with you some remarkable lessons from the nature-based solutions practiced by my community for generations. Maasai Pastoralists comprise about 25% of Kenya’s population, mostly occupying arid and semi-arid lands. Like most Indigenous Peoples of the world, the East African Maasai were pushed out of more productive territories like the highlands to the much drier and semi-arid districts of Narok and Kajiado. These environments are continually changing, making high resilience and adaptability central to the Pastoralists’ survival.
At least 75% of the total land area in Kenya is classified as arid and semi-arid lands (ASAL) which comprises savanna and grassland ecosystems. ASALs’ defining feature is their aridity, and since pastoralism relies on the availability of water to thrive, adverse weather patterns have resulted in reduced diversification opportunities in agro-pastoralism.
For years, policy makers have argued that mobile pastoralism was irrational and environmentally destructive, contributing little to the national economy. But on the contrary, research shows the contribution of livestock to agricultural GDP is almost as high as crops and horticulture. According to government estimates, ASALs host about 70% of the national livestock herd, and livestock production accounts for about 30% of Kenya’s total national agricultural production. In fact, the bulk of the livestock products consumed in the Horn of Africa region comes from drylands. Pastoralism is key to maintaining vital dryland ecosystems, which are not just valuable for wildlife conservation and livestock keeping but also in maintaining soil fertility, water and air quality, and critically, carbon sequestration.
As herders, Maasai know all the grasses on the range and can distinguish between plants that are good for increasing milk and those that fatten the livestock. This knowledge is particularly important during exceptionally dry years when decisions must be made about where to graze based on the availability of resources. In addition, Maasai have evolved a well-managed system of livestock management in order to ensure a continuous supply of livestock forage. Some of their strategies to cope with climate variability include using rotation grazing on diverse rangelands where wet and dry season grazing areas exist, keeping multispecies herdes who feed on different ecological niches, and setting aside land for grazing reserves during critical periods for young, sick or lactating animals.
These are just a few examples of how Indigenous knowledge systems can improve natural environments and secure nature that sequesters carbon. Scaling-up efforts to secure Indigenous Peoples’ land rights, represents the world’s single greatest opportunity to enhance ecosystem resilience as well as mitigate climate change: but today, Indigenous Peoples and local communities legally own just 10% of global land mass despite customarily managing over 50% of it. Disregarding Indigenous Peoples’ vital contributions is a major missed opportunity for proponents of modern nature-based solutions for climate change.
Research: From moral hazard to risk-response feedback, Climate RIsk Management - Researchers argue that carbon removal discourse should avoid the ‘moral hazard’ frame and instead propose a ‘risk-response-framework’.
Report: Carbon Rights Brief, Rights and Resources Initiative & McGill University - report looking at the status and legal recognition of the rights of Indegnoues peoples and local communities through the lens of an increasing drive towards land-based carbon removal.
